The EPA under the slimy, characterless man, Pruitt, recently tried to bury a study that found a common chemical is much more toxic than originally thought. A man of character does not lose track of the singular mission of their organization and make it secondary to other motives.

If you don’t agree with the mission of your charge then change the mission, Follow it or resign. Given he likely lacks the power to change the mission of the EPA he should resign and run for Congress where he can change it.

Our Mission
The mission of EPA is to protect human health and the environment.

EPA works to ensure that:

Americans have clean air, land and water;

National efforts to reduce environmental risks are based on the best available scientific information;

Federal laws protecting human health and the environment are administered and enforced fairly, effectively and as Congress intended;

Environmental stewardship is integral to U.S. policies concerning natural resources, human health, economic growth, energy, transportation, agriculture, industry, and international trade, and these factors are similarly considered in establishing environmental policy;

All parts of society--communities, individuals, businesses, and state, local and tribal governments--have access to accurate information sufficient to effectively participate in managing human health and environmental risks;

Contaminated lands and toxic sites are cleaned up by potentially responsible parties and revitalized; and

The EPA under the slimy, characterless man, Pruitt, recently tried to bury a study that found a common chemical is much more toxic than originally thought. A man of character does not lose track of the singular mission of their organization and make it secondary to other motives.

If you don’t agree with the mission of your charge then change the mission, Follow it or resign. Given he likely lacks the power to change the mission of the EPA he should resign and run for Congress where he can change it.

Our Mission
The mission of EPA is to protect human health and the environment.

EPA works to ensure that:

Americans have clean air, land and water;

National efforts to reduce environmental risks are based on the best available scientific information;

Federal laws protecting human health and the environment are administered and enforced fairly, effectively and as Congress intended;

Environmental stewardship is integral to U.S. policies concerning natural resources, human health, economic growth, energy, transportation, agriculture, industry, and international trade, and these factors are similarly considered in establishing environmental policy;

All parts of society--communities, individuals, businesses, and state, local and tribal governments--have access to accurate information sufficient to effectively participate in managing human health and environmental risks;

Contaminated lands and toxic sites are cleaned up by potentially responsible parties and revitalized; and

What is the goal in trying to hide this? What Republican/Conservative ideals does it advance? Any of you conservatives on the forum want to explain, because I don't get how this helps you or your goals.

The EPA under the slimy, characterless man, Pruitt, recently tried to bury a study that found a common chemical is much more toxic than originally thought. A man of character does not lose track of the singular mission of their organization and make it secondary to other motives.

If you don’t agree with the mission of your charge then change the mission, Follow it or resign. Given he likely lacks the power to change the mission of the EPA he should resign and run for Congress where he can change it.

Our Mission
The mission of EPA is to protect human health and the environment.

EPA works to ensure that:

Americans have clean air, land and water;

National efforts to reduce environmental risks are based on the best available scientific information;

Federal laws protecting human health and the environment are administered and enforced fairly, effectively and as Congress intended;

Environmental stewardship is integral to U.S. policies concerning natural resources, human health, economic growth, energy, transportation, agriculture, industry, and international trade, and these factors are similarly considered in establishing environmental policy;

All parts of society--communities, individuals, businesses, and state, local and tribal governments--have access to accurate information sufficient to effectively participate in managing human health and environmental risks;

Contaminated lands and toxic sites are cleaned up by potentially responsible parties and revitalized; and

Did this "slimy man" cause the Colorado river to be pollute with toxic waste water? No? Good then he's a 10,0000,000,000 times better that that hack that Obama had... Please forgot the date on the article (for historical record) because it's to point out a clear difference in two different EPA leaders. One (Obama's EPA leader) was an abject idiot and one is not...

EPA Says It Released 3 Million Gallons Of Contaminated Water Into River

in this time where all libs and the media will print anything . they can find to hurt the Trump admin-true or not- it is hard to know what to really believe when stories like this come out- there is one key word in the headline which gives the author somewhere to hide if his source is not accurate

I’m all for clean air and water.....oh, and earth too. The article says that EPA/Pruitt are burying the report. And?
The report could be very well done and helpful to Americans and should be released.
The report could also be pseudoscience mierda that the administration does not want to deal with and defend.
Or, somewhere in between.

I have no tolerance for dirtbags who endanger others for a buck (or millions of bucks); so, if this is what Pruitt is doing then hang ‘em high. If this is just another inter-agency squabble then let it sort itself out. I could be wrong, but this seems like one issue that has a bark worse than its bite.

The agency was established in 1970, by President Richard Nixon. William Ruckelshaus, its first administrator, who also led the E.P.A. under Ronald Reagan, told me, “My principal concern is that Pruitt and the people he’s hired to work with him don’t fundamentally agree with the mission of the agency. They seem more concerned about costs associated with regulations.

In suing the E.P.A., Pruitt and other state attorneys general usually partnered with industry litigants. Many of the corporations involved—such as Murray Energy and Southern Company—had donated to his campaigns or to affiliated super pacs. The co-chair of Pruitt’s 2014 reëlection campaign was Harold Hamm, the billionaire C.E.O. of the oil-and-natural-gas company Continental Resources.

In Oklahoma, Pruitt’s obeisance to the energy industry was sometimes startling. Four years ago, Eric Lipton, of the Times, revealed that a letter Pruitt once sent to E.P.A. regulators, complaining that they had overestimated how much pollution new oil wells were producing in Oklahoma, had been copied, nearly word for word, from a draft supplied by Devon Energy. William F. Whitsitt, who then directed government relations at Devon, praised the letter as “outstanding.”

This is another witch hunt by the commies that hate the Obama regulations that SP is undoing. That's all this is about. Sore azz losers will whine... And lest he didn't dump 3 million gallons of toxins into the Colorado river like Obama's idiot did.

I’m all for clean air and water.....oh, and earth too. The article says that EPA/Pruitt are burying the report. And?
The report could be very well done and helpful to Americans and should be released.
The report could also be pseudoscience mierda that the administration does not want to deal with and defend.
Or, somewhere in between.

I have no tolerance for dirtbags who endanger others for a buck (or millions of bucks); so, if this is what Pruitt is doing then hang ‘em high. If this is just another inter-agency squabble then let it sort itself out. I could be wrong, but this seems like one issue that has a bark worse than its bite.

Click to expand...

I would expect that the reason they consider these high levels of chemical contamination in water to be a "public relations nightmare" is that it's a scary problem without a feasible solution that the EPA is empowered to implement. Nobody wants to deliver that kind of news.

By the way, I don't believe that PFOA and PFOS are only used in Teflon and firefighting foam, like that story seems to imply. It must be in other stuff, too. Either that, or I don't believe that the contamination is as widespread as they're making it out to be. Maybe from Teflon, if traces of the chemicals come off your pots and pans and go down the drain every time you run them through the dishwasher. But firefighting foam? I don't think there's been enough of that sprayed around to cause a national problem.

Then why were so many wells testing positive for Ethylene Dibromide (EDB) to the extent That the site qualified as a superfund cleanup site? When I built my house in the early 90's, wells in the neighborhood were testing positive for EDB so much that the state was providing free filtration systems for wells that tested positive. When I worked at IFAS here at UF, I remember a couple of researchers were talking about how big the EDB problem was going to be. Fortunately, EDB has a short half life and becomes harmlessly inert in a few years, My well tested negative so I had to spring for the filtration out of pocket. The house next to me tested positive.

Did this "slimy man" cause the Colorado river to be pollute with toxic waste water? No? Good then he's a 10,0000,000,000 times better that that hack that Obama had... Please forgot the date on the article (for historical record) because it's to point out a clear difference in two different EPA leaders. One (Obama's EPA leader) was an abject idiot and one is not...

EPA Says It Released 3 Million Gallons Of Contaminated Water Into River

Rick, has your outlook become so partisan that you are unable to distinguish an accidental release from an intentional burying of a report, or just unwilling to admit that neither is acceptable because your side is involved with one of them?

J- I never said anything about the wells- I merely pointed out that what they(Tower Chemial) did was the norm in those days

Click to expand...

My dad's company used to toss out failed test batches of paint and resins in the back of the building, and over 20 people who worked in that building got and eventually died of cancer, including my dad. The building became an EPA superfund site. I apologize for being hypersensitive on that subject. I'm sure you understand. Bill, we're Clermont boys and you know I like and respect you.

when you think back to some of the things done in those days it makes you wonder how more people didn't die

my Dad taught me how to change my own oil and we drained it out into a 3 gallon bucket and we dug hole and dumped it in the woods next door

we scrubbed down the driveway with kerosine - hell when I worked at Dick's Texaco right out of high school- we deck scrubbed the bays with kerosine and then tide and just hosed it out and into the drains next to SR50-which went into Dollar Lake(Lake Sunnyside)

when you think back to some of the things done in those days it makes you wonder how more people didn't die

my Dad taught me how to change my own oil and we drained it out into a 3 gallon bucket and we dug hole and dumped it in the woods next door

we scrubbed down the driveway with kerosine - hell when I worked at Dick's Texaco right out of high school- we deck scrubbed the bays with kerosine and then tide and just hosed it out and into the drains next to SR50-which went into Dollar Lake(Lake Sunnyside)

nobody in those days gave a thought to the consequences

Click to expand...

Agree 100% - which is exactly why we need a strong EPA to fairly evaluate they types of practices we have engaged in out of ignorance, expedience and profit motive in order to protect the public health.

Sometimes regulations can be overbroad or unnecessary, but we need to debate these matters publicly and transparently and not have a regulatory agency that simply kowtows to corporate whim - frequently based solely upon maximizing profit. Some of those "pesky regulations" are extremely important in protecting the safety of the public. This becomes especially true as our population grows putting more people close to where dangerous substances may be improperly stored/released and as our ability to create particularly noxious substances increases with advances in science.